Now, obviously a WWIII scenario is not historically accurate since it didnt happen. by historically accurate i mean the units and countries, how accurate are the units and how accurate are the unit rosters for the countries?

It's pretty good, though some things have been overlooked or tweaked for balance. Their sources for unit stats definitely go beyond national propaganda. The first rude awakening many US players have is when they find out a pile of M1A1s is not as invincible as they thought.

The developers really focus on making a "game", and not a simulation. Balance is the top priority, and that means most units are "realistic enough" to play their intended roles. This is most obvious with aircraft and AA, where weapon ranges are greatly shrunk down to fit on the battlefield. I'm pretty sure a Buk-M1 can shoot further than 4.5km, but that's the in-game range against jets.

It could be a pretty good simulation engine, actually, but that's just not what Eugen is going for.

The first rude awakening many US players have is when they find out a pile of M1A1s is not as invincible as they thought.r.

I'm reading Command & Control at the moment - and one of the themes throughout post-WWII was that the US was focusing too much on the nuclear arms race, and not enough on conventional warfare.

It does also seem to play out one important tactical reality - Soviet aircraft were garbage compared to their NATO conterparts. This suits me fine, as my 40 point Czech Albatros are effective, but not as painful to loose as the 155 point T-Bolt.

Great fun Weak on Tactic's side. Like the big hq markers which people sharp shoot, No defensive option's (dig in, hull down spec ops ambush, mines ect your units are basically in one mode only. Anti air would be helped with a light max range circle so you can inter lock you AA ) But a great game still, More about your units max range and target's type. Some tanks run out of fuel after moving 20% on the map.

Wargames is one of the closest games you can get to be historically accurate. However it is a game so obviously units do need to be balanced to make it enjoyable and since its a game there are always unconventional tactics. spam *cough*

I have actually learnt a lot of military knowledge just from playing wargames. After around 10 + matches you'll able to identify all NATO military symbols (If your settings are changed to NATO) . After around 25 + hours you can generally identify units and national origin (Krustjager-Swedish). Then after 50 hours of solid gameplay you identify what ammo each unit uses (Vulcan - A 10 Thunderbolt, T-80U - Reflex) and after probably oh idk...75 + you describe a unit in detail (Mi 24A is a Russian assault gunship that can carry a squad of SF, VDV, Spetnaz)

It's pretty good, though some things have been overlooked or tweaked for balance. Their sources for unit stats definitely go beyond national propaganda. The first rude awakening many US players have is when they find out a pile of M1A1s is not as invincible as they thought.

The developers really focus on making a "game", and not a simulation. Balance is the top priority, and that means most units are "realistic enough" to play their intended roles. This is most obvious with aircraft and AA, where weapon ranges are greatly shrunk down to fit on the battlefield. I'm pretty sure a Buk-M1 can shoot further than 4.5km, but that's the in-game range against jets.

It could be a pretty good simulation engine, actually, but that's just not what Eugen is going for.

Their sources don`t go past national propoganda they thumb their nose at reality as they go travelling past to some fantasy land,a T72 having the same engagement range as a challenger mk1...yeah ok even the Soviets never believed that one even the factory that makes the 2A46 gun claims an effective range a full KM less than the L11A5 and combat experience has pretty much proven that claim.Vehicles carrying weapons they were never equipped with,missile ranges slashed making helicopters significantly more vunerable to Shilka than they should be,SAM range reduced to the point of absurdity especially the Russian systems...its fun game but anyone thinking the unit stats are even close to accurate has never paid attention to the subject matter.Its a shame its marketed as a simulation they would have been much better off marketing it as a generic RTS which unfortunately it is.

Their sources don`t go past national propoganda they thumb their nose at reality as they go travelling past to some fantasy land,a T72 having the same engagement range as a challenger mk1...yeah ok even the Soviets never believed that one even the factory that makes the 2A46 gun claims an effective range a full KM less than the L11A5 and combat experience has pretty much proven that claim.Vehicles carrying weapons they were never equipped with,missile ranges slashed making helicopters significantly more vunerable to Shilka than they should be,SAM range reduced to the point of absurdity especially the Russian systems...its fun game but anyone thinking the unit stats are even close to accurate has never paid attention to the subject matter.Its a shame its marketed as a simulation they would have been much better off marketing it as a generic RTS which unfortunately it is.

That's exactly what I said. They go for balance, not realism. No doubt they know the actual ranges, they just don't apply them if it doesn't work, balance-wise. Notice how all autocannons have basically the same stats, despite 40mm cannons far overpowering and outranging 25mm cannons in real life. And yet, as I said, it doesn't really change how you use the unit.

Personally, I'd rather have realism be the main goal over balance, but they've made it very clear that they're not going that way.

The least realistic thing i have found is that there are no visual differences shape wise between the different f4 variants and the f15 varients, basically they have used the f4f model for all phantoms and the f15c for all f15's. Also in real life the F4G has no internal gun. But apart from this it is accurate.